North Indian Inscriptions

RECORDS OF THE SOMAVAMSI KINGS OF KATAK.

statement of the grammarian Pâṇini, who, writing in [it is supposed] the second century B.C., and referring to occurrences which he himself might have seen, says that the Yavanas laid siege to Oudh and besieged the Mâdhyamikas ; the Mâdhyamikas, who were Buddhists, were the people of the kingdom of Magadha or Behâr where Buddhism had become the royal religion under Aśôka in the third century B.C.;¹ and it was through this kingdom of Magadha or Behâr that the Greeks found their way into Orissa. But, like the Koṅgudêśa-Rajâkkaḷ (see p. 170 f. above) and the Râjâvalî-kathe (see Ind. Ant. Vol. XXI. p. 157) for the province of Mysore in Western India, these annals are in reality absolutely worthless for any purposes of ancient history. And it is desirable to prove this, by shewing up the nature of the earlier part of them, and to put them out of court once and for good.

......The annals open with the commencement of the Kali age, in B.C. 3101, or more properly B.C. 3102 ; and they give first the names of three well-known Purâṇic kings, Yudhishṭhira, Parikshit, and Janamêjaya, of the Pâṇḍu dynasty of Indraprastha or Delhi in the Sômavaṁśa or Lunar Race. These three persons are represented as reigning for 12, 731, and 551 years,─ covering the period from B.C. 3101 to 1807.² And all that need be said about them, is, that their names were taken from the Purâṇas. Then there are placed, Śaṁkaradêva³ (represented as reigning for 400 years), Gautamadêva (370 years), Mahêndradêva (215 years), Ishṭadêva⁴ (134 years), Sêvakadêva⁵ (150 years), Vajradêva (117 years), Narasiṁhadêva⁶ (115 years), Mânakṛishṇadêva⁷ (112 years), and Bhôjadêva (127 years),─ covering the period from B.C. 1807 to 57 ; i.e. filling the vacuum up to the next chronological point, the commencement of the Vikrama era, for which the persons who concocted the annals had a definite name with which to make a fresh start. Here, the annals depart altogether from the Purâṇas, which mention none of the above names, and give a totally different line of descent, from Śatânîka, son of Janamêjaya. And this, of course, might be taken as a point in favour of authenticity. But the impossible lengths of the reigns shew that, at the best, the details were not taken truly from any real historical records. And, while Śaṁkara, Gautama, Ishṭadêva, Śêvaka, Vajra, Narasiṁha, and Mânakṛishṇa may possibly be real rulers of later times, simply antedated for the sake of filling the gap,─ (at the same time, since Mr. Stirling calls Sêvakadêva [B.C. 688 to 538] ‘Shewak or Ashok deo,’ there seems to be here an anachronistic and otherwise mistaken reminiscence of the Maurya king Aśôka of the third century B.C.),─ the statements made in connection with the remaining two names expose clearly the purely fictitious nature of this part of the account. The reign of Bhôjadêva is made to cover the period B.C. 184 to 57 : but the annals, endorsing a tradition which elsewhere also is sometimes connected with him, say (see Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV. p. 259) that his court was adorned by the presence of seven hundred and fifty eminent poets, the chief of whom was the celebrated Kâlidâsa ; manifestly, therefore, he is the king Bhôja of Mâlwa, of literary tastes, for whom we have authentic dates ranging from A.D. 1021-22 to 1042-43 (see Ep. Ind. Vol. II. pp. 232, 233) ;⁸ and thus, though here an indisputably real name is given, it is antedated by about twelve centuries. A statement made in connection with the name of Mahêndradêva, is almost equally instructive : this person’s
__________________________________________________________________________________________

......¹ But Varâhamihira place the Mâdhyamikas in the Madhyadêśa or middle country of India (just where we should expect, from their name, to find them), and allots the Magadha country and its people to the eastern division (see Ind. Ant. Vol. XXII. p. 183).
......² I quote, throughout, the details given by Sir William Hunter in his Orissa, ed. 1872, Vol. II. Appendix VII., as the results given there evidently (see page 324 above. note 2) represent the better examination of the original records.
......³ Called ‘Sambar or Sancara Deo’ by Mr. Stirling.
......⁴ Called ‘Ashti Deo’ by the same.
......⁵ Called ‘Shewak or Ashok Deo’ by the same.
......⁶ Called ‘Sarsankh’ by the same.
......⁷ Called ‘Hansha, Hansha, Hans, and Hangsha Deo’ by the same.
......⁸ Of couse, I do not mean to say that this was the period of Kâlidâsa also.